If the elected officials don't follow the desires of a majority of their constituents, they risk losing following elections. By responding to the wants of the majority, they can create a situation in which they have supported those that can vote them into office again.

Why do many places not take action against these structures? In many of these areas, the people living within the gated communities are wealthy individuals. These homeowners are more likely to participate in decision making for the community because they have made a hefty investment, and they want to keep their area safe. If the cities take action to prevent these walled-off communities, it could cause the wealthy citizens to move to other areas, affecting revenues for the city.

I believe that this still occurs today, albeit in a much more subtle manner. Certain neighborhoods are given priority, and their resident's concerns are of much more importance. For this reason, there are aspects of the environment that deter the entrance of people that are not as affluent.

Some of these exclusions may not be due to the structures design or construction, but from the regulations pertaining to the business or family that moves into it. In many instances, the regulations surrounding a business are made to help the majority of people. Some of these rules make it harder for some minority groups, such as those with autism, to participate in activities. As time has progressed however, more people are being included, opening the doors for all members of society to be active participants.

Architecture definitely plays a role in the everyday lives of citizens. I do, however, think that these regulations are beginning to change in the built environment. As discussed in the article, "Five places in Manchester that cater for children with autism," these regulations are beginning to change in a way that allows a wider range of people to have access to the amenities that higher members of society have had access to forever.

In the article, “Five places in Manchester that cater for children with autism,” it discusses several business that have begun to accommodate children with special needs. In the past, there have been many businesses and structures in cities that have not made it possible for all types of people, including those with disabilities, special needs, and the elderly, to take advantage of them. However, change has begun to occur in many places. As the article discusses, there are now businesses and companies that are beginning to host events specifically for those people with autism. Some of these, such as movie theatres and play centres, have been difficult for children with autism to go to because they are generally full of a lot of guests, which can cause anxiety in some of these children.

What this article shows is that not only are companies beginning to make accommodations so that more members of society are able to make use of their services, but society as a whole is progressing to include everyone. Autistic children were once not able to go to movies and attend large activities because the lights, sound, and sheer number of people could cause them to have bad anxiety. It is a way to ease the stress that presses down on the caretakers of the children, because they are unable to do activities with their children like others. This is a sign that in the future, more and more people with disabilities of any kind will be able to enjoy the luxuries other people get to in a way that makes them comfortable.

Emma Gill. “Five Places in Manchester That Cater for Children with Autism - Manchester Evening News.” Manchester Evening News. N.p., 19 Sept. 2016. Web. 27 Sept. 2016.

Living in Atlanta has provided an interesting insight into this particular case. While walking around downtown, I have recently noticed a lot of work crews repaving the sidewalks with ramps enabling disabled residents to have easier access to the safety of the sidewalks. What this shows is that only recently have people been able to enact change by making it a bit more equal for all people to have access to certain amenities.

This has come to light quite a bit in recent times. In many different neighborhoods across the countries, especially those with a large Caucasian population, it is possible that members of the community are more likely to report unkown individuals of another race because they do not fit the stereotypical member of that area.

This is an interesting point. Homeowners are going to be more active in community decision making because they are permanent residents. Renters are relatively able to move whenever and are less likely to vote because they can simply move away if something they don't like occurs to the area. Homeowners, on the other hand, have invested much more money into the area, and they are going to try and keep it as good and to their liking as possible.

As the article discusses, the built environmeny can be used as a form of regulation, making it work for some and using it to push away others. However, is it possible that some officials could pass laws preventing this kind of subtle regulation? They are often implemented as a way to deter the lower class from straying into areas populated by wealthier members of society, so is it right? If more people understood what was happening, would there be more concern with it?

When the public thinks about the laws and regulations that govern society, they often think of those passed by the federal and state governments. However, it is interesting to think that more subtle things are capable of regulating the people. Minute details in the construction and implementation of objects can play a role in determining who can use them, and who they may deter.

This is one of the main focuses of this section. Every structure in an area is built to serve a purpose. No matter how small the structure may be, people would not direct resources to its implementation if it did not better, at least somewhat, the area in which it is being built. The possibility for items to be built is based upon the area in which it is being placed, but it can also be used as a way to dictate who can use the space and in what way.

Schindler brings forth an interesting point in this section. In many instances in which companies and the like are creating public structures, it is important to strike a balance between both aestheticism and functionality.